Vote Above!___Ok! Now for the next phase of the New Class Challenge. Your version of a classic class for DCC RPG can be featured in an upcoming issue of Crawl! But it's gotta be good!

Post your proposal in this thread. Don't worry about too many specific details. I want to see concepts and features that separates them from the core classes. Don't worry about tables & charts. If there are any new or weird concepts or theory behind your proposal, include them at the end of the post. Use a format like this:

Ranger Class for DCCRPGBy Raskal – Version 09/11/2012 - A special Thanks to GanskVersion on Google DocumentYou are a tough wilderness warrior, living and lurking at the fringe of civilised areas. Your life is often a lonely one but you can guide adventuring parties across dangerous regions. You are trained to survive in wilderness environment.

Hit Die: d10

Alignment: Rangers adhere to different moral codes by are often fighting to protect the Balance of the Nature; so they are usually neutral. Chaotic rangers are fearless raiders, Nature defender extremist, obsessive trophy hunter and sometimes human hunter . Lawful rangers acts as army scouts, skirmishers, frontiersmen patrolling the marches or bounty hunters tracking down criminals for the rewards offered. Neutral rangers are often lone wanderers following their own way.

Weapons and Armors: Rangers are trained with these weapons : club, crossbow, dagger, dart, handaxe, javelin, longbow, longsword, mace, shortbow, shortsword, sling, spear, staff. Rangers do not use combination of shield and armor with a total Physical Penalty of -6 or higher.

Wilderness Skills: A long life in the wilderness area trains Rangers to survive in natural hostile environment. Ranger receive a bonus to skills checks equal to his class level plus Ability Modifier.

Survival (Personality) : This skill allows the Ranger to find shelter and sustenance (food, water), to start fire, to find direction and give some local knowledge (geography, animal, plants). The Ranger can follow tracks of any creature, identify them and tell the number. He can also conceal his own tracks. DC 10 is for famliar terrain, 15 if the ranger is not alone (between 2 and 8 people) and 20 if not familiar with the terrain or environment or if there is more than 8 people.

Sneak and Hide (Agilty) : Rangers are very good at stealth in natural environment, sneaking silently and hiding in natural cover. This can be used in the same manner as a thief’s abilities

Find and neutralize natural trap (Agility) : Rangers can detect, neutralize and build simple natural traps. A large, bulky trap is DC 10 (pit in the floor covered by brush, or snares). More subtle traps are DC 15, 20, or even higher. A natural 1 on these checks triggers the trap.

Favored Enemies: Rangers are efficient in fighting against his favored enemies as humanoids and giants. When fighting favored enemies, the Deed Die is improved by one shift. The improved Deed Die is also added in Wilderness skills checks involving Favored Enemies.

At Level 1, the ranger must choose one type of favored enemies in the following list : lawful humanoids (bugbears, goblins, hobgoblins), neutral humanoids (kobolds), chaotic humanoids (gnoll, orcs) and chaotic giants (cyclops, hill giants, frost giants, fire giants, cloud giants, ogres). At level 3, 6 and 9, the ranger can choose another favored enemies type but the ranger must have already fought this enemy. Judge can allows the player to choose other types of favored enemies as perversions of nature (slimes, etc.), ape-men, lizardmen, or even subhumans, humans or demi-humans.The Judge may prohibit the improve of the Deed Die by one shift if the ranger has not fought his favored enemies sometime while progressing through his or her previous level.

Ranger Path: Ranger must choose one of these two paths:

Archery Expert: can perform the Precision Shot Mighty Deeds of Arms and, when firing into melee, the ranger has no 50% chance to hit an ally engaged in the meleeTwo-weapon Expert: can perform Trips and Throws Mighty Deeds of Arms and can fight effectively with 2 equal-sized one-handed weapons (if Agility is less than 16, treats Agility as 16).

Luck: While outdoors, if the ranger rolls under his luck score, he is not surprised.

Languages : A ranger knows two additional languages for every point of Int modifier. These languages must be one of his favored enemies (bugbear, goblin, gnoll, hobgoblin, kobold, ogre, orc, giant) or animal one (bear, eagle, ferret, horse, wolf).

Action dice: A Ranger always uses his action dice for attacks. At 5th level a ranger gains a second attack for each round with his second attack die.

Am I the only one that thinks Rangers being forced into the archer or two-weapon fighter categories just plain sucks, and always has? It has never felt attached to the class concept in general to me, especially since their affinity with two-weapon fighting didn't even exist prior to 2nd edition.

Am I the only one that thinks Rangers being forced into the archer or two-weapon fighter categories just plain sucks, and always has? It has never felt attached to the class concept in general to me, especially since their affinity with two-weapon fighting didn't even exist prior to 2nd edition.

No, there is at least one more besides yourself . My favorite ranger that I ever played used a spear and buckler.

_________________Terry Olson

Last edited by Pesky on Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Am I the only one that thinks Rangers being forced into the archer or two-weapon fighter categories just plain sucks, and always has? It has never felt attached to the class concept in general to me, especially since their affinity with two-weapon fighting didn't even exist prior to 2nd edition.

I agree with you. I have also never been a fan of the "favoured enemy" idea.

I agree with you. I have also never been a fan of the "favoured enemy" idea.

I go back and forth on that one, but mostly I'm not a fan either.

I like it best when it is something that the player gets to choose that customizes their character a little bit, but I feel it is balanced best and makes more in-character sense when the favored enemy is locked into a specific set of creatures that the Ranger was taught to fight.

In a DCC world where people in general aren't familiar with monsters... I really don't think there is any flavor space for Rangers having favored enemies at all until they are high level, and then only if they happened to face a consistent sort of foe over the course of the campaign.

The favored enemy should be suggested by the DM - if the campaign has a common enemy that threatens to come out of the wilds to overrun civilization, that creature or class of creature should be the favored enemy. It could be human barbarians with a specific culture in the campaign, for example. As a protector roaming the borderlands, the ranger should have experience fighting these enemies. Maybe adding the ranger's level to damage would represent the growth in experience better?

The favored enemy should be suggested by the DM - if the campaign has a common enemy that threatens to come out of the wilds to overrun civilization, that creature or class of creature should be the favored enemy. It could be human barbarians with a specific culture in the campaign, for example. As a protector roaming the borderlands, the ranger should have experience fighting these enemies. Maybe adding the ranger's level to damage would represent the growth in experience better?

I'd be down with that style - and "add level to damage" is exactly how 1st edition AD&D did things.

I still think the Ranger class could be developed pretty simply within the existing fighter class, as has been said by others. The key is to really work that zero-level background into character development. This might be a reason just to allow the player to pick character background. So, he's a hunter or a woodsman or whatever (hell, he could be a fisherman or ostler, with his "wild places" being the sea or the open plains).

It might be that there could be a tradeoff in allowed armor and weapons in order to bolt on some very specific skillset, but a skillset that makes sense for this particular ranger. Let's take the example of Conan. He grew up in Cimmeria. It's why he can climb the sh*t out of some towers and cliffs and whatnot. So, he gets climbing (as thief), but he doesn't get to wear the heaviest mail, unless he's also just stupidly strong, like Conan. And, yes, I know Conan wasn't a ranger (or a thief, or just a vanilla fighter), but his base class was, I'd argue, a fighter. The rest of the glitz was simply bolted onto that foundation. More importantly, it had much to do with his original background, and (and this point is an important one for DCC, I think) what he developed into was about his progression as a fighter. It's about what he did, not simply about what his class was.

What follows is that something like "favored enemy" becomes something about the character's story, rather than just another skillset or group of feats found in a discrete section of a rulebook or splatbook.

You have a good point, but the goal of the thread is to create a ranger class. To declare a warrior with a wilderness background to be a ranger is a perfectly viable option in anybody's game, but it is outside the scope of this thread.

One rule that could be introduced to reflect the campaign's narrative is to say that a ranger's bonus against his or her favored enemy cannot be increased by level unless the ranger actually fought the enemy sometime while progressing through his or her previous level.

So a 2nd level ranger must fight the enemy at least once while 2nd level to gain the bonus upon attaining 3rd level.

I have updated the class with some precisions about description and alignement. I have also added some modifications on Luck and Languages (following Gansk remarks)I have also limited the range of Favored Ennemies

I think the long and the short of it is, it has to be distinctly and sufficiently different from the existing warrior class to be worth using. A lot of people are proposing new classes (including this one) that use some form of the Deed die mechanic, which I think takes away from the coolness factor of warriors (dorfs already do this to a certain extent).

To each his own, of course, but I don't particularly like much of what's been proposed thus far. For the most part, they just don't feel different enough.

So, here's my two cents FWIW.

from Wiktionary:

Noun

ranger (plural rangers)

1. One who ranges; a rover. 1. A roving robber; one who seeks plunder.2. A keeper, guardian, or soldier who ranges over a region (generally of wilderness) to protect the area or enforce the law.3. (obsolete) That which separates or arranges; a sieve. [quotations ▼]4. A dog that beats the ground in search of game.

I think that's your best starting point, rather than the AD&D ranger character class as written. I'm reminded of the contempt with which Denethor sneers in The Return of the King that he won't bow to "this ranger from the North!"

So, to me, a ranger might be like a military officer trained as a scout or wilderness survivalist/campaigner, a tracker and hunter of big or dangerous game, that sort of thing. Or, he might be like an Indiana Jones-type adventurer... good in a fight but not overwhelming, living more on wits than strength of arms. Maybe he knows a spell or two, even, he's a dabbler in a lot of different things. Maybe they get a d14 or d16 for spell checks instead of the normal d10. He should probably be able to identify flora and fauna with relative ease. He should also be able to avoid becoming lost in the wilderness, forage for food or water, safely camp out of the elements, etc, and maybe get a bonus to find his way in even magical fog or darkness. I'd probably place his hitpoints in the same range as clerics... something better than elves and thieves, but not as good as dwarves and warriors. I'd probably limit spells to 1 / level, and max spell level of 2 or 3; wizard spells only, and armor check penalties apply.

And, what about making a ranger a man of action? Instead of the standard d20 action dice, give him two action dice at d16s at level 1, even if not dual-wielding. Or maybe he gets the benefit of the increased action dice if using a ranged weapon (of any kind: thrown, shot, whip, whatever).

Although I agree that the Ranger (and the Paladin for that matter) are best left as Warriors with alignment, background & role-playing elements, the masses have spoken: There is a demand for a Ranger (and a Paladin) as a separate class. That's really all there is to it. There were plenty of opportunities to discuss nuances and campaign for other classes. But to debate whether there "should" be a Ranger (or Paladin) is pointless. It is what it is. The challenge remains, create a DCC RPG Ranger that meets the demand for one. There is still time to come up with your own concept, but be prepared to flesh it out when the time comes... a couple weeks, at least.

Has anyone considered making these Warrior sub-classes more like "kits" rather than new classes?

Although I agree that the Ranger (and the Paladin for that matter) are best left as Warriors with alignment, background & role-playing elements, the masses have spoken: There is a demand for a Ranger (and a Paladin) as a separate class. That's really all there is to it. There were plenty of opportunities to discuss nuances and campaign for other classes. But to debate whether there "should" be a Ranger (or Paladin) is pointless. It is what it is. The challenge remains, create a DCC RPG Ranger that meets the demand for one. There is still time to come up with your own concept, but be prepared to flesh it out when the time comes... a couple weeks, at least.

Has anyone considered making these Warrior sub-classes more like "kits" rather than new classes?

No, I understood, wasn't arguing that. Just saying, I personally think these have to be different - and not just kits - from Warriors in order to be really viable and interesting, long term.

The class above has been well designed, but I have one significant issue: it feels like a D&D 3.x ranger. If DCC draws its inspiration from appendix N, I would urge you to ignore 3.x altogether and look to the source material for inspiration. Whether that means the rangers of LOTR or the borderers of RE Howard, or a mix thereof, it doesn't matter. But make it feel like an appendix N creation rather than a D&D 3.x creation. Just a suggestion.

Here's my idea for Rangers. I envision them along the LotR line, with a dash of the NetHack Archeologist mixed in... sort of Aragorn meets Indiana Jones, quick witted fighters who are men of ACTION (and, hence, action DICE).

Rangers get d8 hit points per level. They get +2 to attack at level 1, then +1/level afterwards, max +11 at level 10.

Action dice: 2d16 at level 1, d20+d16 at 2, d20+d16+d14 at 3, d20+2d16 at 4, 2d20+d16 at 5, 3d20 at 6, 3d20+d12 at 7, 3d20+d14 at 8, 3d20+d16 at 9, 4d20 at 10.

Spells: Starting at level 3, a Ranger may learn arcane (wizard) spells. Remember, armor checks apply. Further, a Ranger casts spells using a special, reduced action die: d12 at 3-4, d14 at 5-6, d16 at 7-8, and d20 at 9-10. They are limited to knowing the following spells (max level) / level: 1(1) at 3, 2(1) at 4, 2(2) at 5, 3(2) at 6, 3(3) at 7, 4(3) at 8, 4(4) at 9, 5(4) at 10. A Ranger cannot swap out spells in any way short of a very arduous quest. Rangers cannot use spellburn. They are merely dabblers, and occasionally find useful magic tricks to employ.

Wilderness survival skills: Rangers almost never lose their sense of direction, and only become lost on a 1 on a d20. Rangers can unerringly track any creature moving over any land surface so long as the tracks are visible (i.e., can't track THROUGH water, but might be able to pick up a trail again after it's been lost, etc). Rangers can automatically identify the tracks of any creature they are familiar with (judge's discretion). Rangers can also identify any animals/plants they are familiar with (judge's discretion).

Rangers can identify the purity/wholesomeness of food or drink: roll a d6 + level, versus the DC of the spell level of a potion to determine what it does. Rangers can automatically identify safe water and poison.

Fast movement: Rangers have a base speed of 40'. At level 6, this increases to 50'. This bonus is lost if the ranger wears bulky armor (greater than -2 armor check penalty).

The class above has been well designed, but I have one significant issue: it feels like a D&D 3.x ranger. If DCC draws its inspiration from appendix N, I would urge you to ignore 3.x altogether and look to the source material for inspiration. Whether that means the rangers of LOTR or the borderers of RE Howard, or a mix thereof, it doesn't matter. But make it feel like an appendix N creation rather than a D&D 3.x creation. Just a suggestion.

It is true that "my" Ranger is influenced by the class of version 3.x but a point of view Appendix N, this version of the Ranger is also influenced by Elbryan Wyndon, the main character of The DemonWars Saga written by RA Salvatore.

It is true that "my" Ranger is influenced by the class of version 3.x but a point of view Appendix N, this version of the Ranger is also influenced by Elbryan Wyndon, the main character of The DemonWars Saga written by RA Salvatore.

Ok, time for an update. I've been watching these forums, and I've been hesitant to reply so to not influence or sway any designs.

I think it's perfectly fine, for now, to throw out your concepts and get some input on your ideas & designs. But get ready to finalize and complete the class for submission. It's OK to link to the finished class, but make sure it's viewable to the general public. I recommend using Google Docs, because you can draft the text, make tables and lists. Format is not "as" important at this time, but any tables and charts need to be complete. Also avoid any "references" to other classes. They should be complete classes. For example, "Weapon proficiency as Thief" doesn't fly, list them out. References to Mighty Deeds and Spells are fine

It's also worth noting that although some classes may not be specifically "Appendix N", the influence is there. And while DCC RPG heavily emphasises Appendix N, the way we play is heavily inspired by Old-school D&D. Quite frankly, simply and obviously, people want to play these classes. So that's the focus. All four classes are "Classic" D&D classes, and all four classes were voted for because people feel they're "missing" from DCC RPG. So there is nothing wrong with these classes having D&D flavor vs mythology or even Appendix N. That's part of the challenge. Create the class you want to see that will fill the desire of the missing class. People want to play these classes in DCC RPG, so it's probably in your best interest to make them familiar. But at the same time, the opportunity to innovate and create something new and interesting should not be ignored or dismissed.

On that note, let's give it another week! I'd like to see more concepts for each class. But start finalizing and tightening up your classes!

I am against the "favored enemy" and "dual wielding" schtick in DCCRPG for Rangers. I think the class has enough as it is described by raskal. I would reduce the deed die progression though. Warriors should be the best for this.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum